About your Search

20121002
20121010
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
states" was a very interesting and important one. i think that the obama administration would say, look, if there was no daylight the israelis might well have taken military action by now and the u.s. would be sucked into it. the u.s. would have to join it. so there has been daylight, but the daylight in the obama administration's view has been intended to say to the israelis, "look, we're not at the point yet where they're about to get a bomb, there are other possibilities, including more sanctions and more sabotage." >> rose: prime minister netanyahu would welcome this speech? >> by and large yes. but there were some interesting statements that i'm not sure if the word would be "welcome." when governor romney talked about a two-state solution in the middle east and talked about a prosperous and secure independent palestinian state, that was interesting to me because given some of his previous comments people may have wondered whether he represented something of a departure and that to me was his way of saying look, i'm in the mainstream on important issues, i'm in the mainstream on th
-aircraft and anti-armor. >> rose: that's a distinction from the obama administration according to the -- >> right. i think the nuclear weapons capability line with iran. that seems to be different because the president's always talked about we're not going to contain an iran with nuclear weapons. mr. romney seems to be saying we're not even prepared to get that close. obviously the devil's in the details. >> rose: so governor romney's red line may be earlier than president obama's red line. >> exactly right. i actually thought one other thing was interesting which is he talked about our relationship with most of the arab countries. the egypts and others, the libyas. what he essentially laid out was called a conditional foreign policy. essentially saying, look, the era where we gave aid to you all and you act as you see fit is over. we will continue to work with you but only so long as you meet us halfway, whether it's the way you treat women, girls and minorities, your foreign policy more broadly against israel and terrorism. i think that's an important statement and one that people in both parties
consumption tumble. and their prices surge. that explains the soaring prices to the obama administration's energy policy. >> there is limited amount of corn now. and ethanol is still a big buyer. >> reporter: under present circumstances that seems no easy task. a live stock former in nebraska. he has 60 of his 300 head of cattle. to minimize feed costs he now uses less corn in big mixes. so, he is a republican. he is not demanding that the corn restrictions be lifted. >> we are using this right hereafter the ethanol is taken out. to me it is a plus. it is a plus. i am not an advocate of throwing ethanol out the window. >> he is growing corn for live stock feed. while shipping the grain for ethanol use. thanks to the government policy, corn for bioethanol fuel is a key source of stable income for farmers. and since many farmers, the republican party, finding it difficult to press for a change of policy. beef supplies are expected to dwin dwindle in the u.s. this winter. pushing up prices even higher. and take preventative action is likely because beef prices to rise and grain prices to so
the united states and iran is better now than it was at the beginning of the obama administration in 2000-- 2008/2009? >> i have said i don't want to talk about something that would affect-- that would affect the u.s. elections. but i can state my own desires. i think, i think that the current situation between iran and the u.s. is to both parties disadvantage. there is certainly much room for improvement. why should the u.s. government be in conflict with us i haven't really been able to understand this so far. and i'm a political person. has the united states government have any gains, i'm not saying we have had any gains. no, we certainly didn't have any gains. why should we be in conflict with each other this is a serious question. >> rose: it's a very serious question. >> after all the american politicians should sit down and answer this question. why should we disagree with one another. >> rose: and i will ask them but what about your side? what can you do, what are you prepared to do, what changes have you made in terms of your attitude about the united states. your willingness to
toward totalitarianism with the presidency that has made so much worse under both the bush and the obama administrations, which have shown content for the rule of law, due process, and restrict -- such contempt for the rule of law, due process, and restrictions on the u.n. is its constitutional. we must say no to assassinations of u.s. citizens, say no to indefinite detention without any semblance of due process, and to the continued drone killings that have made our nation so much less secure. so let your voices be heard loudly from the voting booth as you are guided by your most deeply held values. >> the justice party's presidential candidate rocky anderson and green party candidate dr. jill stein, as a participated in the presidential debate last night in real time averell podiums, albeit outside the gates of the official debate on "democracy now!" special broadcast "expanding debates time to see the three hour debate, go to democracynow.org. democracy now! is looking for feedback from people who appreciate the closed captioning. e-mail your comments to outreach@democracynow.org or m
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)